Dysert is third string, end of story Lard

Of course, that didn't stop his colleague Jeff Legwold from doing so, but one out of two ain't so terrible, right?

Back to Klis, he says the selection of QB Zac Dysert (which we predicted in Kreskin-like fashion) is about prodding Brock Osweiler's development along, but not about providing him real competition. Obviously, that could be the outcome, but it's not the intent. Where each player was selected should speak volumes about what Denver thinks of them, were it not already clear.

As for the matchup safety Ted's been begging for, Klis says the team was enamored with LSU's Eric Reid, and he suggests that an impressive showing from Kayvon Webster could push either Champ Bailey or Chris Harris to safety.

In sticking up for himself and Leggy, Klis ridiculously suggests that the 214-pound Montee Ball is a "couple pounds shy" of being classified as a "big back."

Really, at this point, we (they) should all just drop the notion that Denver wanted a bigger back, and just agree that they obviously wanted another back, or perhaps a better one.

Broncos

According to Mike Florio, Shaun Phillips will count for $1.4M against Denver's 2013 cap, and his $1.6M in incentives would count for 2014, should he reach them.

John Clayton's accounting, which says the Broncos are currently $8.4M under the cap, agrees with Florio's, but that likely needs updating after the Phillips signing, and they should have more like $7.4M at this point.

Andrew Mason discusses the undrafted rookies he thinks have the best chance at cracking Denver's 53-man roster.

As Jeff Legwold sees it, stiff hips are what keep David Bruton from being used more in pass coverage.

News

Jags WR Justin Blackmon has been suspended four games by the NFL for a violation of the substance abuse policy. As a player who came into the league with off-the-field problems, his contract was written up with protections for the team, and this suspension could end up voiding much of the guarantees that remain in his deal and forcing him to give back part of his signing bonus.

Geno Smith's pouting didn't stop with almost going home after the first round - he's now fired his agents, although he claims his decision wasn't spurred only by the draft.

Chris Polian, son of Bill, has followed (new GM) David Caldwell to Jacksonville, where he'll be a scouting director.

Tim Tebow

This will only surprise a certain segment of the population, but the Ultimate Teammate™ cleared waivers despite a $3.5M pricetag over two years, which would seem a bargain for the greatest human/athlete ever born. Of course, this means it will indeed be the LOLJetswho payDenver the $1.53M they're owed, and not some other sucker team.

The job proposals continue to pile up for Teebs, as the Omaha Beef of the IFL offered him $75/week, which is a nice fallback, should the CFL, AFL, and LFL fail to pique his interest.

I was a little white boy growing up in middle class America. Nothing in my childhood could be described as traumatic without completely pissing all over the meaning of the word.

I know there are some people who equate religious indoctrination with child abuse. I certainly feel empathy for all the bright kids with imaginations vivid enough to really contemplate what an eternity in hell might be like. I can understand their confusion as their ideas about fairness and right and wrong are completely turned upside down by the very concept of eternal punishment.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-02 18:08:50

I agree with and relate to both your responses (I've probably had friends over the years that would describe me as the a-hole...at least episodically), thanks for taking the time!

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-02 17:17:32

I'll also note that I firmly believe there is no right of anyone to not be offended. Offensive language can and should be protected by the law, to the fullest extent possible, because "offensive" is defined by the receiver, not the giver.If you're offended by what someone says, you have the right to tell them they are wrong. So if non-PC language offends you... tell them they are wrong, or feel free to insult them back (even though the latter is often counter-productive to resolving the dispute).And if someone telling you you are a bigot or non-PC because of what you say offends you... deal with it. There is no tyranny in discourse, whether polite or not. But there certainly can be tyranny in policy, so I'm far more concerned about offensive and biased policy than I am about what Joe Blow says or was offended by, on either side.

Posted by cjfarls on 2013-05-02 13:42:31

Fair point... there are certainly cases where "not offending" someone is probably the lessor moral choice. And there is a lot of great comedy based upon being as offensive as possible ("the Aristocrats!").So yeah, there are certainly exceptions. But again, as far as the general principle, we'd all be better off if folks tried to get along. "Treat others as you'd like to be treated" is a great rule to live by, and most folks don't like being offended when they are the target of the offense.I also am good friends with a number of a-holes (as defined by me above, as people who intentionally go out to offend people).... their good qualities outweigh the bad, and there are a lot worse things in the world than a-holes. But they are still a-holes.

Posted by cjfarls on 2013-05-02 13:24:45

well This sure sounded traumatic to me..

"in my specific case, the indoctrination began before the age of reason. I was presented with a classic carrot-and-stick scenario. I could either live forever in paradise and death would only be a temporary separation from my mom and dad or I could be tortured horribly forever. They came at me with this rather lopsided proposition well before I could sensibly process the information or make a reasoned and lucid appraisal of the situation. "

I'm glad to see it was not..

I suspect that some day you just might find the indictrination a bit less so and take comfort in religion . Again, if not this is a free country and you have the RIGHT to make that your decision..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-02 12:20:08

I didn't find church traumatic at all. I just don't see the purpose in pretending to believe something with no good reason whatsoever.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-02 10:00:31

His experience in holding placekicks already makes him more valuable than Oz.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2013-05-02 05:00:07

I still do not see the correlation.. of "It requires something like religion to make good people do bad things"

Sorry but bad people are bad people..

there are examples of other atrocities that do not invoke religion.. other than perhaps being religious (see Germany) Jewish.. Again bad people doing bad things..

Obviously you have never recovered from the trama of being forced to go to church with your parents.. Someday you just may, but I'm not holding my breath..

But good try.. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. on this..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-02 01:35:11

I thought I'd weigh in on the PC subject here even though my comments aren't solely directed to you, Chibronx.

This general subject is part of my area of informal study, although I won't pretend to have reached more than some tentative conclusions, so I apologize in advance for the incomplete nature of my understanding of the subject.

You're basically correct, Chibronx, the term PC is typically part of the "conservative" (I'd use Right Wing) lexicon. To be more specific, it's a RW meme at home in RW Populism. And as such, it's part of a "demonization" process, which Berlet & Lyons identify in their book Right-Wing Populism in America as one the four main aspects of RW Populism, along with Producerism, Scapegoating and Right-Wing Theories of Power.

I stated that you were only "basically correct" because the most vociferous proponents of the PC meme are the status panic stricken whites who view themselves as under attack. I don't want to be dismissive towards their fears, since their fears can be justified (even if poorly directed), but I also won't encourage the ludicrous idea that PC is akin to tyranny.

I'm sure Copernicus and Galileo would testify to the inaccuracies in the Bible, which begin on page one.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 23:33:48

Well, Lonestar, one example I could cite would be Exodus 22:18 in the King James Bible, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of women have been condemned to die brutal deaths in witch trials over the centuries in Europe and the United States, Incredibly, this practice still persists in parts of Africa to this day.

Now, you might say that these were and are the actions of small groups of evil men using the bible to justify their crimes, but I don't think that explanation is sufficient. It doesn't absolve the other members of those congregations. Their inaction in the face of such atrocities makes them complicit. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 23:28:11

Watching Dysert's clips, I'm very impressed with his quick, compact release and accuracy at all levels. He was also charted as the most accurate deep ball thrower in the last 3 draft classes. He's apparently a wee bit of a bonehead ala Cutler on third down at times, but I see an NFL future for the kid. He might push Oz hard. I think he makes the team, although he'll probably in street clothes on Sundays.

Posted by drewthorn on 2013-05-01 23:14:39

The o line was hurting too. I have to believe Vasquez is there to improve the run game as well.

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2013-05-01 22:16:06

I would recommend people read Kenneth Davis' book "Don't Know Much About the Bible." He takes an even-handed approach to what the Bible is all about, not trying to convert anyone but, at the same time, not insulting Christians -- yet points out that, the truth is, most of us haven't really read the Bible.

In the introduction, he talks about some of the Bible's history, such as the tale of William Tyndale, who, in 1536, dared to translate the Bible from Latin to English and his reward was being strangled to death, then his body burned at the stake. If that were to happen today, nearly everyone in the United States (and worldwide, for that matter), regardless of religion (or lack thereof) or political status, would call such actions reprehensible.

Anyway, the Tyndale example gives you some perspective about how the Bible was once viewed: It must remain in Latin, no matter what. I suspect most Bible literalists today would have a problem with that concept.

Posted by Bob Morris on 2013-05-01 22:15:35

An old friend of ours, LeRoy Butler, was set for a speaking engagement at a Wisconsin church and, after he voiced support for Jason Collins, the church told him to take it back or they would cancel the engagement.

As a sidenote - Leviticus contains many of the over 600 Mosaic commandments. I know - it's easier to talk about 10, but the reality is that if you quote one, you'd better be living the other 612. So far, I've yet to find a Christian who quotes Leviticus re: homosexuality and who lives the rest of it.

Frankly, I doubt that many who quote it have even read it. Far fewer have studied the culture and history of it. And, yes, as Kell points out, a fair amount of the Bible is erroneous.

An example is the Sodom/Gomorrah silliness. A loose-mass comet came into our atmosphere from the area south/southeast of Sodom. It gave off pieces, one of which wiped out the valley that Sodom and Gomorrah were in. We know this because an astronomer was on his roof watching when this occurred (about 4 am) and the stone he carved his observations into, in cuneiform, still exists. That comet changed the hierarchy and legends of several religions, including that of the Hebrews. It blew off pieces as it crossed towards the northwest, including some in Greece, and it finally landed in the Balkans (I've looked at the video of the rift it tore in a mountain range while going down. Quite remarkable).

The change in the Hebrew legends that dealt with Sodom sprang up just after that. When Yamule talks about indoctrination, he's got a point. When did you ever hear about the comet? Never. Why not? Because it messes with the theory that the bible is not inerrant, even though history shows that it is not short of inaccuracies.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2013-05-01 21:47:50

without reading all the links, I still fail to understand this logic..

As a child I was drug to church forced to get confirmed, felt that it was BS as most folks sitting in the church sinned and then came in for confession and went out and sinned agaian.. Made no sense to me as a child..

after leaving home for the service I decided that religion was a farce.. For decades I believed in a higher being/power.. but did not attend church..

I took until my last child was in the womb and seeing the fingers and toes, that got me back to church.. Especially after holding her for the first time..

Y'all can believe or not believe Perhaps I'm a bad Christian for saying it but that is your problem down the line..

I suspect as you grow in life experiences if indeed you had some religion in your life you will come back to it and embrace it..

I know that religion has nothing to do with making good people do bad things..

For the MOST part It is bad people that do bad things.... Probably because they were never taught right from wrong.. If they were when they did something bad or wrong they were not punished for it..

DO good folks do bad tings absolutely, and might do more if they did not have a moral compass..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-01 21:34:45

Bradley: actually, yes, that is what I'm saying, though ultimately I would change the language a bit.

Ultimately, I would say that our only choice is to live our lives by truths or lies, with the secondary assertion that the determination of what is truth and what is lie has less to do with critical thinking and evolved perspectives than many would claim or than we've been told to believe.

And as to claims about living free, I can't claim to have read the books you mention, but would point with the same kind of enthusiasm to the letters of Paul.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 21:34:30

Brian - are you really saying that our only choice is which "indoctrination" we choose to live our lives by? "...there seems to be little recognition that everyone is ultimately the product of some kind of indoctrination."You can actually choose to live free. Read, for example, The First And Last Freedom by J. Krishnamurdi. And all of Carlos Castaneda's books about Don Juan Matus.Freedom from the thoughts of others is there for the taking, if you dare.

Posted by bradley on 2013-05-01 21:12:46

IMO the Broncos brought Dysert in as the #3 guy to help share the OTA/TC load and not wear out Mannings arm.

IF they get anything out of him more than that GOOD for HIM.. I suspect he will be PS this coming year..

"It requires something like religion to make good people do bad things"

I fail to understand this logic.. please expound on it..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-01 20:35:14

By the way, Yahmule, before I respond: thanks for the engaging dialog, it's refreshing in this age of rock-throwing and bombast.

As to the comparison, I readily recognize the distinction you're drawing between the inculcation you received as a youth and the inculcation you received as an adult. The latter was surely the result of a more complex series than the former, and in that sense I imagine we might be closer than it has seemed regarding the definition of the word "indoctrination". But my point, at least in part, is that both are imbibed, and that while your adult worldview is more critically accepted, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is more true.

Of course, as I've already stated, it's unlikely that we'd be able to have a mutually satisfying discussion about the relative merits of our (or anyone's) worldview here, but I beat this drum because some of the criticism of Broussard's perspective is undoubtedly grounded in an implicit acceptance that his worldview is somehow the inferior one, when I would argue that that has hardly been proved (and is not, in fact, proved by a surface-level comparison of Christian faith versus Critical Humanism -- or whatever other label one might use).

Hope that helps.Brian

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 20:07:56

Brian, It wasn't my intention to imply any condescension on your part. I was using the scant impressions you've picked up from my internet persona to illustrate a point. Simply that you don't know me well enough to detail any type of indoctrination I might have undergone. Unless your definition of indoctrination differs wildly from mine and I suspect further examination of our positions will show that to be the case.

I'm still interested in the comparison you're going to draw between my two equally impacting indoctrinations. On one hand, stories told to an innocent and credulous child, in the most solemn tones, by the people he trusts the most in the world. On the other hand, an adult with a wealth of life experience and the ability to think critically.

I understand the limitations of the internet and I promise not to take anything you say personally.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 18:36:00

For starters, I think the interwebs let me down. What you heard as critical (my reference to your avatar and name) was simply meant as tongue-in-cheek commentary. I didn't intend it as condescension so I'll leave that alone.

As to your questions: yes, I do intend to compare the indoctrination you received as a child to that you've received as an adult, because ultimately, the relative merit of each depends entirely on whether or not they reflect what is true. And in response to your invitation, I would flesh out the specifics of your current worldview along naturalistic and humanistic lines, with what seems to be a corresponding distaste for appeals to a divine authority.

And yes, obviously you like your worldview, though I question just how easily you or anyone might change it. I'm disinclined to believe that such matters boil down to the idea that we're all simply waiting for the best evidence so that our worldview might accommodate it (but that is part of my own worldview, you see).

Either way, I don't need to know any more about you than what you've written on a Bronco's forum to know that you're a better person than Fred Phelps.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 18:06:28

My apologies for addressing you as Brain instead of Brian, but you're obviously an intelligent guy, so it was an easy mistake.

Nothing I like better than starting off a long post with an obvious misspelling. I like to gain the reader's confidence right away.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 17:28:47

Brain, in my specific case, the indoctrination began before the age of reason. I was presented with a classic carrot-and-stick scenario. I could either live forever in paradise and death would only be a temporary separation from my mom and dad or I could be tortured horribly forever. They came at me with this rather lopsided proposition well before I could sensibly process the information or make a reasoned and lucid appraisal of the situation.

Do you mean to compare that to what you claim was my other indoctrination? While you're at it, could you flesh out the specifics of this as yet unnamed indoctrination? It should be easy. You know I have a fictitious moniker, I favor avatars featuring two dogs and I'm either male or female.

I mean, what other information would you need?

Of course, that's all academic, since nobody can really say which world view is best, right?

I mean, I like my world view and if I didn't, I would change it. I'm sure Fred Phelps feels the same way about his outlook on the world. He even has written corroborative documentation backing him up that's over two thousand years old. All I have to combat that is the Disqus thumbs up system. Yet, I still sense that I'm a better person than Fred and almost certainly a better person than most of the people depicted in the bible. I think all of us are.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 17:25:03

Van, after asking my question, I responded to Yahmule above in a way that I think I would ultimately respond to you. If you'd be willing to take the time to read my statement there, it might help clarify the nature of my question here.

Ultimately, I'm insinuating that this discussion comes down to authority, and that the authority to define the conversation's parameters is precisely what's at stake. As it stands, the authority you are potentially appealing to is an authority grounded in the politically and socially-sanctioned language of our day, which (to my mind), hardly qualifies as an appeal to ultimate (or praise-worthy) authority.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 16:53:05

One of the most interesting characteristics of this debate (and debates like it) is that while many are quick to assert indoctrination (or even "brainwashing" in bradley's case below) as the rationale for a position like Broussard's, there seems to be little recognition that everyone is ultimately the product of some kind of indoctrination.

That is, the person behind the two-dogs-picture, bearing the internet monicker "Yahmule", is him/her self just as much a product of indoctrination, and this reality begs the ultimate question:

What is the best/right worldview into which a person should be indoctrinated?

With the corollary question being:

On what basis do we determine such?

Now, this kind of forum is hardly the theater for adjudicating such epistemological complexities, but I hope you can appreciate that what you see as "contradiction" is shaped by your own worldview's indoctrination, and that you calling it such hardly constitutes an a priori assertion.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 16:46:53

Van, can you help me understand something about your response (I'm interested in responding, but need some clarification): are you stating as a matter of fact that "the viewpoint of individuals such as Broussard are intolerant, bigoted, hateful and religiously inspired..."?

And, if so, on what basis? (that is, according to whom?)

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 16:23:26

I miss him too. I can't seem to find any comedians that make me laugh AND think the way he did. But I always remember his bit about words and the power they do or do not have, etc. to that end, I see Carlin as being "sort of" proof that intelligent, rational people can have an issue with "political correctness" as well.

My only issue with RG3's tweet is it seems like the kind of vague, attention-needing thing my nieces and nephews insist on posting so everyone will ask "Oh noes! What happened?!?!"

/get off my lawn?

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2013-05-01 15:20:01

I don't understand what you're trying to get at by saying IAOFMers would be offended by that. I mean, I understand you're trying to troll, but I guess I'm not understanding your central sarcastic point.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2013-05-01 15:15:36

I would love nothing more than to hear his response. Even - hell, especially - if it was to tell me I'm full of shit. I really miss that guy.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 15:11:48

This is an interesting dilemma that you've presented.

Functionally, Conservative "Christians" are requesting that they be addressed with language that isn't perceived by them as insulting or berating. Language that acknowledges their position and accepts that there exists a diversity of opinion, and that each person's opinion or uniqueness should be respected. The term for this sort of language is politically correct language.

Yet, it is this same political correctness that is demeaned and used as an epithet by Conservative Christians. It is a term used by Conservative Christians as shorthand for the ills of secularism, multi-culturalism and tolerance.

The viewpoint of individuals such as Broussard are intolerant, bigoted, hateful and religiously inspired, an element of a sub-set of American culture. The sexual behavior of homosexuals is according to the Mosaic Laws and many interpretations of passages in the New Testament a sin, an abomination, wrong and a path to damnation.

Political correctness indicates that we appreciate the diversity of opinion on the issue and seek to develop language that appreciates the complexity of individual opinions on this matter and is not harmful to the listener. Is political correctness wrong or are people misusing the term and the ideology that underlies it?

Posted by Van Carter on 2013-05-01 14:49:04

Yup. I'm sure the team would be thrilled if Dysert performed at a Tom Brady-like level, as relates to draft position.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2013-05-01 14:42:14

George Carlin would probably like to eloquently disagree with this bit of oversimplification.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2013-05-01 14:37:30

"It requires something like religion to make good people do bad things."Well said. You use the word "indoctrinated" while I would use the word "brainwashed" That's what happens to little kids hammered into believing a certain system. I went through that - it's tough to overcome. One of the reasons I despise the Tebows and their ilk.

Posted by bradley on 2013-05-01 14:13:34

It's plausible, but those potential empathy converts are still enjoying the kick-him-while-he's-down phase of the story.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 14:07:58

In the words of Jay Catler -- "Doooooooontttttttt caaaaaaaaarrrrreeeee." Just score, baby...

Posted by jvill on 2013-05-01 14:01:25

Not to mention many of the passages in Leviticus are pretty vague, and are basically twisted to say whatever people want it them to say.

One most often cited as 'against homosexuality' says that a man should not lay with another man as he would with woman. That's often read to be against gays. But if you're a gay man, you are still upholding that direction -- indeed, you would not lay with a woman as you would with a man because, ya know, you're gay.

Through this lens, the verse simply tells you to be true to who you are -- aka, the way god made you.

God forbid the haters spread that message when 'god hates fags' is so much more catchy and easier to remember.

Posted by jvill on 2013-05-01 13:58:19

lol true

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2013-05-01 13:55:30

Would it be politically incorrect to identify as politically correct?

Posted by jvill on 2013-05-01 13:50:45

Not to mention the First Amendment is protection from the government, not from private citizens. If you want to say stuff on a website I run that I don't agree with, it's perfectly within my rights to boot you from my private property.

Posted by jvill on 2013-05-01 13:48:16

Happy to be of service, Carsonic.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 13:46:12

I don't necessarily blame Broussard for his position. He was indoctrinated into a particular belief system as a child and particular attitudes have been reinforced into him over a long period of time.

I believe bad people do bad things and good people do mostly good things. It requires something like religion to make good people do bad things. You can see that internal conflict at work in Broussard. He acknowledges that Jason Collins showed bravery with his decision. He claims that America's greatness is tied to tolerance and acceptance. Yet those words contradict the scripture he follows and he must somehow live within that contradiction. Now you can say pressure exerted by the forces of political correctness are making him recant/retract/revise his comments, but that wouldn't change what he truly believes and the contradictions still remain.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 13:41:57

When I think about RB, most of what I think drives this was our failure to convert short-down scenarios after both McGahee and Moreno were injured. So while one of them may be replaced, I'm guessing it's more to focus on improving our bench in general. So we don't find ourselves depending on Jacob Hester late in a season.

Posted by tunesmith on 2013-05-01 13:23:21

If this fit the basic American pattern, there will later be reports of Tebow being depressed, and then a human interest "tell-all" interview with Tebow that finally "humanizes" him as he shares frustrations and introspection, and the rehabilitation will turn him into an underdog to the non-Zombies until he ends up getting playing time and everyone pats themselves on the back for getting behind him after he paid his dues.

Posted by tunesmith on 2013-05-01 13:19:29

Let's drop political correctness, by all means. We can start with acknowledging that, despite it's many positive messages, the Bible is rife with bullshit -- particularly in the Book of Leviticus, which houses the passage most often used to stigmatize homosexuality.

We can also discuss how debating policy from a faith-based perspective is the antithesis of reason, let alone the separation of church and state.

For me, not being politically correct is a euphemism for objective and rational discussion, which by definition precludes inclusion of religion or faith-based positions. Ready? Go.

Posted by Kell_C on 2013-05-01 12:59:48

Wow. I'm impressed. CJ has serious quicks, good power and speed, and looks like he has good hands also. If he can play special teams, byby Lance Ball.

Posted by bradley on 2013-05-01 12:50:04

I hate not even trying to get into position to kick a FG to win a playoff game but settling for OT far, far more.

Posted by Steven Searls on 2013-05-01 12:42:29

sincere question: Why is offending people a bad thing? Your comment makes it sounds like you think offense is always negative.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 12:40:12

It is also a term people use to describe a rhetorical climate in which particular viewpoints are automatically characterized as backwards, bigoted, and hateful, no matter how nuanced, thoughtful, or articulate. For instance, when Broussard states that as a Christian, he believes that homosexuality is a sin, he is labeled by many as a hateful bigot. So while your definition may strike some resonant chords, it is far from complete. In fact, it strikes me as the functional equivalent of "quit your crying, you lost" (which is the least I would want to say to groups like the KKK, but otherwise unhelpful to the nurturing of meaningful public discourse).

That's right. They believe that the First Amendment protects their right to say something obnoxious, but for some reason do not believe that it also protects the right of others to criticize them for saying something obnoxious.

Posted by AldenBrown on 2013-05-01 12:06:43

Only thing I hate about human bowling balls is their affect on FF. I hate it when a RB does the majority of the work, gets the ball to the 1 yard line and the bowling ball comes in for a TD. I remember Alstott and Bettis sometimes having 3 yards and 2 td's.

Of course I hate kicking a field goal on the 1 yard line far more. :)

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2013-05-01 12:03:51

I guess you'd need to define "discipline". I live in Brooklyn and I have a young child. Disciplining him in public is not a problem. But I also don't beat him.

Posted by jvill on 2013-05-01 11:59:28

Alright, you got me to track down a highlights video for CJ. Nice over-the-shoulder grabs and some tough yard after contact. He'll be fun to watch in camp.

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2013-05-01 11:40:58

My instant I-just-looked-at-a-highlights-video reaction to Mason's article is that we should definitely replace J. Johnson or Fannin with CJ Anderson. I've always envied teams that have had that human bowling ball kind of RB, and Anderson seems like he might have that in him. And he appears to have decent hands, which is one thing I liked about Fannin.

Posted by carsonic on 2013-05-01 11:09:59

I'm gonna steal that bit of brilliance if you don't mind.

Posted by carsonic on 2013-05-01 11:06:11

On another (and more specific) note (and recognizing that this format limits our capacity to engage in the kind of meaningful dialogue that would really be necessary to work through all the implications): I agree with Yoder than Christianity and same-sex-attraction are not incompatible or mutually exclusive.

From a Christian theological perspective, Collins can/could be a Christian, but there would be boundaries to his capacity to express that attraction (just as there are for all Christians).

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 10:51:43

The Broncos definitely consider Osweiler to be the better prospect and he will get most of the reps but that doesn't mean Dysert was drafted just to be third sting. He was drafted because he has potential and is another guy to develop and see if he pans out. The Broncos have shown that low round draft choices and undrafted players have the opportunity to earn bigger roles.

Posted by ohiobronco on 2013-05-01 10:46:10

Of course Yoder's comments are going to be more well-received than Broussard's, he's packaging our culture's mores in Christian language. Broussard offends, Yoder tickles the ears, and 10 times out of 10, the ear-tickler is going to win the public support in the debate.

Posted by Brian M. Jacobson on 2013-05-01 10:43:10

That very well might be and I agree there are a lot of people that use the term PC as a crutch or excuse for bad behavior. But somethings that are politically correct are not always correct. For example right now it is not politically correct to discipline your children (especially in public). Now I'm not saying people should whip or beat their kid but some kids respond differently to different types of discipline.

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2013-05-01 10:42:30

That's a weird angle you took with that one....

Posted by aLuffabo on 2013-05-01 10:39:47

Dysert has better 'tape' than Oswieller. That he fell to the 7th in a craptastic QB draft is a wee bit disconcerting re: life post Manning.

Posted by drewthorn on 2013-05-01 10:34:10

The fact that conservative white dudes have to invent such pathetic strawperson enemies says everything about their insane level of power and the tiny impacts of the left-wing opposition they routinely crush.

Politically correct, oh noes! And sometimes the leftwing phds who earn a fraction of what I do insist on critiquing me. CRITIQUING! Ahhh, it burns!

In all seriousness, the idea that you're held hostage by a construct invented by your political fellow-travelers (I used to be one, and showed up at college expecting there to be speech codes & c. when of course there were no such thing -- I also boldly wore a "No-PC" t-shirt that nobody gave a flying f*ck about) is hilarious. Haven't you noticed that nobody self-identifies as politically correct?

Posted by Chibronx on 2013-05-01 10:31:05

While I generally think many folks have too thin skin on far too many issues, the general principle of trying not to offend people, whether unintentional or not, is hardly "tyranny".

Too often when folks claim people are trying to make them be politically correct, they are really just complaining that people are calling them out for being jerks. If you unintentionally offend someone, apologize. If you're intentionally trying to offend someone.... you're an a-hole.

Posted by cjfarls on 2013-05-01 10:28:38

Unfortunately, I remeber Matt Robinson. He had a real good game for the Jets against the Broncos which pretty much triggered our going after him. But that was his only good game. He played for Denver for one year, completing 48% of his passes and throwing 2 TDs and 12 INTs.Anyway, dumping Tebow on the Jets provided a bit of payback.

Posted by bradley on 2013-05-01 10:16:53

True. "Politically Correct" is a term people who have no idea what it's like to lose a civil rights battle invented when they can't think of a rational argument to justify their prejudices.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 10:04:17

There is a difference in what is correct and what is politically correct though. Please don't confuse the two.

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2013-05-01 09:59:59

Makes sense little if when it read.

Posted by aLuffabo on 2013-05-01 09:58:39

The young man is entitled to his opinion. Americans who wanted to do what was correct are the reason he has the opportunities he does today.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-01 09:55:25

It's rarely a bad idea to draft a good quarterback. Despite exhibiting impressive collective restraint in accurately assessing the value of this year's quarterback class, NFL teams consistently overpay for quarterbacks. You typically see this during the draft (we'll see if 2013 is an anomaly or a trend) and especially in trades involving quarterbacks.

Countless backup quarterbacks have returned first rounders over the years. Most Broncos fans don't remember Matt Robinson, which is a good thing.

The Broncos traded the 20th pick in the 1980 Draft, plus their second rounder and Craig Penrose for this goddamn bum. It's just as well, I suppose. If they hung onto the pick, the probably would have used it to select Matt Malone.

The Broncos are hardly alone. The Saints and Bears traded traded first round picks and more for Steve Walsh and Rick Mirer after these guys had amply demonstrated they were going to suck as NFL quarterbacks.

Okay, I decided to dig around a bit and this guy has compiled a list of quarterbacks who were traded for first round picks (or the rough equivalent). A handful of guy on the list were ascending Hall of Famers, but mostly we're talking about faded vets and failed prospects. Some guys on this list, such as Mike Phipps, also turn up on Worst Quarterbacks of All Time lists.